IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10519 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kaushal …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus 'or' any other appropriate writ order or direction may be issued thereby directing the respondents to grant/release the 2nd financial enhancement/up- gradation under the new ACPS(4-9-14) on completion of 09 years of service on the post of TGT(Arts) w.e.f. 29.08.2015 alongwith all consequential benefits to the petitioner, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020, titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of H.P and ors. a/w connected matters decided on 01.11.2023(Annexure P-2), which stands implemented on 12.06.2024 (Annexure P- 3), in the interest of law and justice. b) That the respondents may be directed to release the interest @ 9% per annum upon the arrears after granting relief no. (a) supra, in the interest of law and justice. c) That during the pendency of the writ petition the respondents may directed to consider and decide the representation dated 16.02.2025(Annexure P-4), in view of the judgment passed in CWPOA No. 5536 of 2020, titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of H.P and ors. a/w connected matters decided on 01.11.2023(Annexure P-2), which stands implemented on 12.06.2024 (Annexure P-3), in the interest of law and justice.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Before reply, if any, could be received from the respondents in the instant proceedings, learned counsel representing the petitioner, states that the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment (Annexure P-2), passed in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020, titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors, decided on 01.11.2023, along with connected matters, in a time bound manner. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 16.02.2025 (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 02, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)